This report of a systematic review of complementary medicine to treat premature ejaculation is fairly complete and includes important limitations of the research.
Some additional context would have been helpful, including information about prescribed treatments that have been approved in other countries, such as SSRI antidepressants, but not in the U.S.
While the problem itself–how exactly one defines “premature” may be open to debate and discussion–it is clear that this is an issue that many men may experience, yet may not want to consult their clinician about. Many may turn to alternative remedies as a result, and this study helps provide some insight into their effectiveness. We were pleased to see that the story made clear that there were limitations to the data, and that the placebo effect could have played a big role.
There were no discussions of cost here, apart from the fact that the products in question would likely be available without a prescription and hence, the costs pertaining to a doctor’s visit would not be relevant here.
While we don’t really know what particular ingredients might be in the tested Chinese herbal treatments, the Ayurvedic herbal medicine or the Korean topical cream, we do learn that “Chinese herbal medicine increased IELT by about two minutes, Ayurvedic herbal medicine increased IELT by nearly a minute and topical cream increased IELT by more than eight minutes.” We would have benefited from knowing what the baseline times were, ie: if the two acupuncture studies were found to increase intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) by about half a minute compared to placebo, how much additional time did the placebo provide?
The report helpfully mentioned that “some studies, but not all, discussed side effects such as gastrointestinal discomfort, dizziness, mild pain and decreased libido. When they were reported, the adverse effects were generally mild.”
It would have been useful to note that the off-label use of SSRIs also involves some rate of adverse effects and that some foreign-sourced herbal treatments have been found to be adulterated with compounds from prescription drugs, and that quality control of herbal treatments is sometimes a problem.
The report explained this was a systematic review looking at a group of studies. The story noted that there were limitations, such as the “underlying weakness of the studies evaluated,” adding “Bias was unclear in most of the studies, and only five used stopwatches to measure IELT, which is the ‘gold standard’ for premature ejaculation studies.”
We’re also told that “the studies are so different, it’s tough to draw conclusions about the different options. For example, the five Chinese medicine studies tested different substances, including Qilin pills, Yimusake and Uighur.”
Even though the prevalence of premature ejaculation is a subject open to disease-mongering, this report did not veer in that direction, noting how difficult to measure it is. “Some studies suggest that between 20 and 30 percent of men report early ejaculation concerns, but the International Society for Sexual Medicine estimates that about 4 percent of men have a lifelong condition.”
The researchers interviewed don’t appear to have any conflicts of interest, and several independent sources were included.
The study noted that the various alternatives were compared against placebo or alternative treatments. It would have been useful to know how the various herbal remedies compared against what is considered by many physicians to be a reference standard–the off-label use of an SSRI antidepressant, such as paroxetine.
It’s not clear how available these products are. Considering how many products are sold online for this problem, some information on what these products are, and how available they are, would be useful.
The study establishes its novelty right up front, saying it is the first systematic review of the alternatives to treat premature ejaculation. Based on a literature search we conducted, this appears to be accurate.
The range of quoted experts and the comprehensiveness of this story would suggest there isn’t an over-reliance on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gary Schwitzer
February 1, 2017 at 10:50 amWe may have been too lenient on our application of the disease-mongering criterion. Our analysis only commented on prevalence statistics, but the bigger concern is whether a condition has been framed as a disease requiring treatment when, in fact, there are important questions about that framing and assumption. Indeed, the marketing of treatments for premature ejaculation has been cited as a prime example of disease-mongering.
Some reading on the topic:
As publisher, I felt compelled to add this perspective to our review. The story could have addressed these concerns with even one sentence, but didn’t. That was the biggest thing that jumped out at me when I read the story.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
HealthNewsReview.org
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like